Brett Kavanaugh

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Message
Author
User avatar
chaos
Posts: 4264
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Brett Kavanaugh

#1 Post by chaos » Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:47 am

Apparently a third accuser will be stepping forward either today or tomorrow.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... misconduct

Third woman expected to make accusations of sexual misconduct
Attorney Michael Avenatti says third woman ‘reached out’ about sexual misconduct allegations against supreme court nominee
Joanna Walters in New York
@Joannawalters13
Mon 24 Sep 2018 17.00 EDT Last modified on Tue 25 Sep 2018 05.42 EDT

A third woman is expected to publicly make accusations of sexual misconduct against supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh this week, her attorney Michael Avenatti said, plunging the judge’s confirmation to America’s highest court into further uncertainty.

“She reached out to me. We vetted her claim and she satisfactorily passed that vetting,” Avenatti said of the new accuser in an interview with the Guardian on Monday.

. . .

Avenatti tweeted on Sunday evening that: “I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn.”

Within minutes on Sunday night, Avenatti had been contacted by Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations for the judiciary committee, asking that any additional information “be submitted so that Senate investigators may promptly begin an inquiry”.

Avenatti replied that he was aware of significant evidence of Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, in summary, participating in “the targeting of women” with alcohol or drugs at house parties in the Washington DC-area in the early 1980s “in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to gang rape them”.

Avenatti then posted: “Senate investigators should pose the following questions to Judge Kavanaugh without delay and provide the answers to the American people,” and then listed detailed questions, including: “Did you ever target one or more women for sex or rape at a house party? Did you ever assist Mark Judge or others in doing so?”

On Monday he further posted that his new client has previously worked within the state department, the US Mint and the Department of Justice and has been granted multiple security clearances in the past. “The GOP and others better be very careful in trying to suggest that she is not credible,” he added.

Avenatti acknowledged that the list of detailed, questions about various aspects of the alleged sexual misconduct which he thought the committee should ask Kavanaugh, were noticeably specific.

“They are very pointed because they are designed to elicit answers that go directly to the facts,” he said.

. . .

Kavanaugh maintains his innocence regarding the first two accusers: :confused:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408 ... nd-college

Kavanaugh: I was a virgin through high school and college
BY EMILY BIRNBAUM - 09/24/18 06:05 PM EDT

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Monday defended himself against the sexual assault allegations roiling his nomination by saying he was a virgin through high school and college.

"We’re talking about an allegation of sexual assault," Kavanaugh said in a clip released from his interview on Fox News Channel's "The Story with Martha MacCallum."

"I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone," Kavanaugh said. "I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter ... The girls from the schools I went to, and I, were friends."

...

Neither of the two accusations regarding Kavanaugh involve sexual intercourse. Christine Blasey Ford is alleging Kavanaugh held her down and groped her over her clothes during a high school party in 1982, and Deborah Ramirez claims he exposed himself without her consent during a gathering at Yale University a few years later.
. . .

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5176
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#2 Post by Pandemonium » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:01 pm

This is an embarrassing clown show.

There is talk the Dr Ford story is falling apart and she may pull out of testifying at the last minute. In an interview today, Feinstein casts doubt whether Dr. Ford shows Thursday, as her attorney is complaining about the outside female attorney participating in questioning her.

Another part of this is there is more and more evidence supporting Ford and Kavanaugh have not actually ever met each other. It is not coincidence that once his calendar was produced and her lifelong friend both convincingly dispute her allegation that the stonewalling to appear has increased (again). Her friend says emphatically she was not at a party and she has never met Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh only has 2 days during that summer where he and Judge are both in Bethesda. So the possible windows for this to happen quickly closes and closes even more when you cross reference with another male named to be at the party who was not in MD at all that summer. Any allegation this old will have elements that do not check out due to time and how the human mind sometimes fill in details over time. However there is literally nothing so far that checks out and as of now zero indication these two people ever have met each other.

As far as other accusers, the other woman mentioned in Farrow's "Face Penis" NYT article is even less credible - it's no surprise that other major news organizations didn't want to run with the story. Attorney Michael Avenatti admits his "secret" (#3) Kavanaugh accuser might not come forward, appearing to blame the woman. “Let me be clear: We will disclose the client’s name and accusations only when SHE is ready and we have adequate security measures in place. And not a moment before that,” Avenatti tweeted. “It is her choice and hers alone as to when to surface because it is her life. We expect it within the next 36 hrs.” After this statement, he locked his Twitter account.

Also, a DA in Maryland did speak with the woman in Rockville who admitted she fabricated her story to support Dr. Ford. They also spoke with the woman who is Ramirez's (#2 accuser) best friend who stated that allegation was also false and went a step beyond claiming it is politically motivated. Today that woman retained legal counsel to pursue potential action against Ramirez who also apparently slandered her husband. One person who bold faced lied to make it onto NPR supporting Ramirez's claim later admitted her fabrication and stated on twitter it was worth it as she accomplished what she wanted (add to the noise and get attention).

At this point, the tactic seems to be to create as many allegations, noise, and innuendo to justify the confirmation vote must stopped or else to avoid Dr Ford testifying as it will not go well. That will give them their point to vilify the other political tribe and get woman voters enthused. Ultimately, it will be likely be a big mistake as they get discredited in the long run.

Speaking for myself, I don't discount that at least the Dr Ford incident didn't happen, but the timing and circumstances of the story breaking are incredibly suspect. At the very least, there should be anger directed at Dianne Feinstein and her office who held on to the information for two months, then "leaked" it supposedly against Dr Ford's wishes at just the right time to create exactly the kind of chaos we're seeing.

As of now, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court at 9:30 a.m. on Friday regardless of whether the Thursday hearing happens or not.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6421
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#3 Post by Hype » Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:48 pm

Yeah, but Kavanaugh is fucked up for all kinds of reasons even if that one accusation isn't true. He shouldn't be on the Supreme Court, and the Democrats are well within their rights to have done pretty much everything they've done to question his appointment.

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5176
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#4 Post by Pandemonium » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm

Hype wrote:Yeah, but Kavanaugh is fucked up for all kinds of reasons even if that one accusation isn't true. He shouldn't be on the Supreme Court, and the Democrats are well within their rights to have done pretty much everything they've done to question his appointment.
Why shouldn’t he be on the Supreme Court? He seems qualified. Unless you’re talking about his business friendly history snd conservative leanings which of course leading to overturning Roe vs Wade someday. And if so, is that justification for possibly smearing the guys reputation with a concerted if clumsy hail mary bullshit effort from a political group? Is that how we get things done now politically? Subvert the real issue of sexual harassment and assault, use and throw possible victims under the bus for political points?

I don’t forget how the Republicans gambled by stalling and screwing Obama out of his pick past the election giving the pick to Trump (it could have easily gone to Clinton) but this is on an entirely new level of gutter politics. Salem Witch Hunt 2018.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6421
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#5 Post by Hype » Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:02 am

I think this article makes the point in a pretty clear way:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... atter.html

User avatar
SR
Posts: 6614
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#6 Post by SR » Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:34 am

Pandemonium wrote:This is an embarrassing clown show.

There is talk the Dr Ford story is falling apart and she may pull out of testifying at the last minute. In an interview today, Feinstein casts doubt whether Dr. Ford shows Thursday, as her attorney is complaining about the outside female attorney participating in questioning her.

Another part of this is there is more and more evidence supporting Ford and Kavanaugh have not actually ever met each other. It is not coincidence that once his calendar was produced and her lifelong friend both convincingly dispute her allegation that the stonewalling to appear has increased (again). Her friend says emphatically she was not at a party and she has never met Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh only has 2 days during that summer where he and Judge are both in Bethesda. So the possible windows for this to happen quickly closes and closes even more when you cross reference with another male named to be at the party who was not in MD at all that summer. Any allegation this old will have elements that do not check out due to time and how the human mind sometimes fill in details over time. However there is literally nothing so far that checks out and as of now zero indication these two people ever have met each other.

As far as other accusers, the other woman mentioned in Farrow's "Face Penis" NYT article is even less credible - it's no surprise that other major news organizations didn't want to run with the story. Attorney Michael Avenatti admits his "secret" (#3) Kavanaugh accuser might not come forward, appearing to blame the woman. “Let me be clear: We will disclose the client’s name and accusations only when SHE is ready and we have adequate security measures in place. And not a moment before that,” Avenatti tweeted. “It is her choice and hers alone as to when to surface because it is her life. We expect it within the next 36 hrs.” After this statement, he locked his Twitter account.

Also, a DA in Maryland did speak with the woman in Rockville who admitted she fabricated her story to support Dr. Ford. They also spoke with the woman who is Ramirez's (#2 accuser) best friend who stated that allegation was also false and went a step beyond claiming it is politically motivated. Today that woman retained legal counsel to pursue potential action against Ramirez who also apparently slandered her husband. One person who bold faced lied to make it onto NPR supporting Ramirez's claim later admitted her fabrication and stated on twitter it was worth it as she accomplished what she wanted (add to the noise and get attention).

At this point, the tactic seems to be to create as many allegations, noise, and innuendo to justify the confirmation vote must stopped or else to avoid Dr Ford testifying as it will not go well. That will give them their point to vilify the other political tribe and get woman voters enthused. Ultimately, it will be likely be a big mistake as they get discredited in the long run.

Speaking for myself, I don't discount that at least the Dr Ford incident didn't happen, but the timing and circumstances of the story breaking are incredibly suspect. At the very least, there should be anger directed at Dianne Feinstein and her office who held on to the information for two months, then "leaked" it supposedly against Dr Ford's wishes at just the right time to create exactly the kind of chaos we're seeing.

As of now, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court at 9:30 a.m. on Friday regardless of whether the Thursday hearing happens or not.
You spend a great deal of time here to stongly indicate that the attack didn't happen...even stating mounting evidence that they never met. I haven't heard that, but I suspect that might have been Fox news reporting. Was it? There is one piece of evidence that indicates that the event occurred; she said it did. It is my understanding that she did not ever want to testify, and the only thing I agree with (or understand, in some of what you wrote) is that Feinstein was depraved in her handling of this. However, the bigger picture is that he is not fit for the court...especially this court and his appointment should have any reasonable person in an apoplectic state.

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 4264
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#7 Post by chaos » Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:24 am

Michael Avenatti unlocked his Twitter account; he said he shut it down because he was being trolled.

Here is the sworn declaration from his client (Julie Swetnick - third woman)


Image

Image

Image


User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5176
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#8 Post by Pandemonium » Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:24 am

SR wrote:There is one piece of evidence that indicates that the event occurred; she said it did.
That is not evidence, that is an accusation.

Under just about any other circumstances, I'd be inclined to give the accusation more weight but as I've mentioned above, there's so much shade and lack of corroborating evidence or witnesses, not to mention the timing and the fact that Dr Fords social media footprint was scrubbed in the weeks before her accusation was made public, it just reeks of a political hit. If at some point some actual evidence that Kavenaugh did what was claimed, I'm happy to be corrected.

Now just this morning, Avenetti's client has come out claiming multiple High School "gang rape" parties where Kavanaugh and his buddies would get girls loaded and more or less rape them. She claims she attended multiple such parties and was herself raped at one (why would she go to more than one?).

Regarding where I compiled the information, a variety of sources, none like Fox, Brietbart, etc. On another list I'm on, there's a long time Democrat Washington insider who's commented on this as well who voices the same concerns I mentioned. Also, there's bullshit rumors and claims coming from the Right that I don't even give a second thought to, such as the supposed (probably photoshopped) clipping from an article in her High School yearbook:

Image

There's so much bullshit coming from all sides, it's exhausting just trying to keep up.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6421
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#9 Post by Hype » Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:40 am

Pandemonium wrote:She claims she attended multiple such parties and was herself raped at one (why would she go to more than one?).
:slap: That kind of stupid question is exactly why women don't report sexual assault. Why would women leave the house? Why would they disobey their abusive husbands? Jesus Christ, dude...

Anyway, suppose that Kavanaugh wasn't actually involved in any of what he's accused. Why should he be a Supreme Court justice? Simply being qualified isn't a reason to appoint someone to one of the rarest and most powerful political positions on the planet. His being conservative isn't a reason *not* to appoint him, but judging his specific decisions and his specific answers to specific questions does seem to me to be a fair way to make that decision.

Why would any woman in the United States in their right mind want to risk giving him this amount of power? Why would anyone?

User avatar
SR
Posts: 6614
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#10 Post by SR » Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:44 am

It is a political hit in an era that is anything but normal. Her accusation has evidence contained within it....time, place, witnesses.

As for your rebuke of the 3rd accuser(?) What in the world would make you argue that it's untrue because "why would she go to the parties"? I am a militant progressive and I think (and have argued for years) that feminism is in many ways incoherent and hypocritical, but #metoo has a great deal of cred. Anyways, if what you argue is true it amounts to so many crimes, so much immorality, and so much malice against the constitution itself....which would be just another blow to it in a crumbling era, not to mention the damage to #metoo. I am not convinced

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6421
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#11 Post by Hype » Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:55 am

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/politics ... index.html
In a 2017 dissent, Kavanaugh said he believed that Obama-era net neutrality regulations were "unlawful" and wrote that the policy violated the First Amendment.
:neutral:

User avatar
SR
Posts: 6614
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#12 Post by SR » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:03 am

His rulings have been abysmal. He'd be right of Thomas. And on the environment, which is a co top issue for me.

https://www.thenation.com/article/just- ... vironment/

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5176
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#13 Post by Pandemonium » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:06 am

Hype wrote:
Pandemonium wrote:She claims she attended multiple such parties and was herself raped at one (why would she go to more than one?).
:slap: That kind of stupid question is exactly why women don't report sexual assault. Why would women leave the house? Why would they disobey their abusive husbands? Jesus Christ, dude...
Come on, that's a pretty big leap there. The alleged crimes are pretty serious felonies, even if they were (likely) underage. Would you go to a party where something like this occurred, then hang out with the same group of people at more parties, especially if there's even a remote chance you'd become a victim as well? Yes? OK, then would you (and presumably the other witnesses/participants) sit on this information until literally the very moment this person is going to be nominated to the highest court in the land?

At any rate, something like this, there has to be multiple witnesses and at least some kind of corroborating evidence. You can't throw out such a serious accusation in a sworn affidavit at the last minute without some kind of supporting evidence - the repercussions for defamation of character and making false statements on this level are pretty severe.

I'm sorry, but this is imo, an instance where hypocritical mob mentality and a clear hatred for The President and his party has completely blinded a lot of people to clear, cold logic. And I say this not being a fan of the current administration.

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5176
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#14 Post by Pandemonium » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:15 am

SR wrote:His rulings have been abysmal. He'd be right of Thomas. And on the environment, which is a co top issue for me.

https://www.thenation.com/article/just- ... vironment/
I agree that he's far right on a lot of issues, but does that justify what appears to be a dirty smear job? Is that what our political system has come to? Subversion by any means necessary? The fact that he's a "good" or "bad" pick is an entirely separate issue from how his nomination is being handled and possibly derailed. This is the road were have been heading for a long time, but this particular event is a major turning point. This is why I'm so vocal on what's happening the past two weeks.

User avatar
SR
Posts: 6614
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#15 Post by SR » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:27 am

Yes, people did all the time. These events were not pre-ordained staples at parties; there was no set time for sexual assaults, but I grew up in a similar situation as Kav….lot's of money, LOTS of hard alcohol, lot's of drugs (mainly cocaine), and lot's of sex. The reality is if a girl did not actively say no and was escorted by a guy to a private room, sex would usually commence. I can't speak for anyone else, but I imagine a great deal was coaxed at best, taken at the worst. This issue isn't new...women have been victims for years just as boys have in the church. Those all began as accusations as well, with evidence to bring them to be stipulated as fact.

I am not buying the choir boy bs. I am not buying this is all fabricated, and I certainly don't hold against any woman who at an early age was assaulted the act of non reporting.

The climate is toxic...it's a result of a vile campaign run by a vile dude who's a malignant narcissist and those who support him.

User avatar
SR
Posts: 6614
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#16 Post by SR » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:34 am

Pandemonium wrote:
SR wrote:His rulings have been abysmal. He'd be right of Thomas. And on the environment, which is a co top issue for me.

https://www.thenation.com/article/just- ... vironment/
I agree that he's far right on a lot of issues, but does that justify what appears to be a dirty smear job? Is that what our political system has come to? Subversion by any means necessary?
Ummmm, yeah....it is. Where have you been? ANd I didn't say it justified this; I said times are not normal, and I think this has become the new normal in politcal manuevering. Trump normalized it and perfected it. :lol:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6421
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#17 Post by Hype » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:44 am

Pandemonium wrote:
Hype wrote:
Pandemonium wrote:She claims she attended multiple such parties and was herself raped at one (why would she go to more than one?).
:slap: That kind of stupid question is exactly why women don't report sexual assault. Why would women leave the house? Why would they disobey their abusive husbands? Jesus Christ, dude...
Come on, that's a pretty big leap there. The alleged crimes are pretty serious felonies, even if they were (likely) underage. Would you go to a party where something like this occurred, then hang out with the same group of people at more parties, especially if there's even a remote chance you'd become a victim as well? Yes? OK, then would you (and presumably the other witnesses/participants) sit on this information until literally the very moment this person is going to be nominated to the highest court in the land?

At any rate, something like this, there has to be multiple witnesses and at least some kind of corroborating evidence. You can't throw out such a serious accusation in a sworn affidavit at the last minute without some kind of supporting evidence - the repercussions for defamation of character and making false statements on this level are pretty severe.

I'm sorry, but this is imo, an instance where hypocritical mob mentality and a clear hatred for The President and his party has completely blinded a lot of people to clear, cold logic. And I say this not being a fan of the current administration.
I think there are a few separate issues involved in all the discussions of Kavanaugh's nomination. That's why I kept the accusations against him separate from questions of his qualifications, and questions of his suitability. These are undoubtedly interrelated, but they shouldn't be confused. What makes it more confusing is that, as your post(s) help illustrate, the current discussions are trying to tackle both the suitability question, and the criminal accusations, and the actions of the Democratic party opposition to Kavanaugh on both grounds, and the popular reactions to all of these things, some of which are simply partisan, others reasoned, more still speculative. The reason why it's difficult to follow is that there just are that many different aspects to what is being talked about. So, once we get clear about which part it is that is actually a concern in a particular discussion, we can decide whether we agree or disagree and why.

Your view seems to involve a few different pieces, some of which I think I agree with, and others I think are a bit muddled or wrongheaded in some way. I agree, for one, that any mob mentality solely for the sake of something not directly related to the known facts is dangerous. I don't, however, think that that's what most people who object to Kavanaugh are engaging in (though, to your point, I agree that *some* are -- and I dislike it as much as you do). The fact that some people are engaging in mob mentality in attacking Kavanaugh isn't really directly related to questions of his becoming a Supreme Court justice.

Maybe I can help clear this up a bit. The only questions that are relevant there are whether: a) he's qualified, b) he's competent, c) he's suitable. His rulings and views on particular issues are not a matter of (a) or (b), they're a matter of suitability (c). Likewise, confusingly, his conduct as a human being (its legality, and its morality) also falls under (c), which may be why the two are getting conflated by everyone. The solution is to split (c) in two: (c)(i): political suitability; (c)(ii): moral/social suitability. It's also worth being clear that the possibility of suitability rests on having already met conditions (a) and (b). If there is evidence that he fails to meet (a) or (b), then any questions that fall under (c) are moot.

We can seriously question his political suitability ((c)(i)) without considering at all any of the other aspects. Likewise, we can also consider the suitability of his moral character to the office ((c)(ii)).

The allegations against him are a matter of (c)(ii). The fact that these allegations may have been raised in a partisan, or unfair, or clearly intentionally ill-timed manner are distinct -- the manner in which allegations are raised does not play a role in whether the truth of the allegations would make him unsuitable. Furthermore, once allegations are made, there are questions of procedure and reasonable political decorum that should be addressed. Even if we believe that the allegations are a hit-job, or unfounded, or whatever, that doesn't have anything to do with what should happen procedure-wise with the nomination process.

There is also a further separate issue of procedural failings on the part of both Republicans, (d)(i), and Democrats (d)(ii). These procedural failings are not directly related to Kavanaugh's satisfying (a), (b), or (c), but they do play a role in whether Kavanaugh should, or will, be appointed. Just as with the other issues, a critic or opponent of Kavanagh may oppose his appointment on these grounds alone, solely because the failure to satisfy them constitutes a breakdown in how the appointment process is intended to operate. From within this issue, of course, there will also be accusations of incompetence, fuckery (intentional or otherwise), and so forth, and these also play a role in the overall legitimacy of the appointment, regardless of what Kavanaugh's status is.

As an outsider (but a neighbour, whose economic and social fortunes are to some degree affected by major American political changes), my concerns are largely procedural, since if addressed these will determine whether the other conditions are satisfied.

I'm of course also concerned that appointing a far-right pseudo-moralist corporatist (read: quasi-fascist) who may also have committed serious criminal offenses to the supreme court sets a bad precedent. But on latter (but not the former) score I'm willing to postpone judgment until after due process. :neutral:

User avatar
SR
Posts: 6614
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#18 Post by SR » Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:46 am

Hype wrote: The allegations against him are a matter of (c)(ii). The fact that these allegations may have been raised in a partisan, or unfair, or clearly intentionally ill-timed manner are distinct -- the manner in which allegations are raised does not play a role in whether the truth of the allegations would make him unsuitable. Furthermore, once allegations are made, there are questions of procedure and reasonable political decorum that should be addressed. Even if we believe that the allegations are a hit-job, or unfounded, or whatever, that doesn't have anything to do with what should happen procedure-wise with the nomination process.
Yes. And here is the grounds for the squalor. Any reasonable attempts to address the allegations in a non partisan manner should include a non partisan entity. It should be noted that a gender neutral party might advance a more objective investigation too. Dr. Ford's wished for this before she was to appear before congress. Today will be interesting

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5176
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#19 Post by Pandemonium » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:15 am

Watching a bit of this farce this morning.... Ugh. The political hackery is in full display.

Dr Ford presents her accusation as pretty credible. She does come across as a bit overly "coached" but overall she's keeping it together and her background in Psychology is a big help. The thing is, so far there's no backup with actual facts. Only thing new today to my knowledge is who introduced her to him. Problem is that persons written statement says he never saw them together or knew her. Her friend is clear in she was not at the party and never met Kavanaugh ever. Plus PJ, the other guy mentioned also states the same. All have submitted written statements. I'm not sure how you close that factual gap or "convict" someone when all witness statements seem to make it likely they never met. So far, its still boils down to either believe a list of witnesses and not Dr Ford or believe her and think *all* the witnesses are mistaken.

IMO, I believe Kavanaugh is toast when the vote goes down tomorrow. I think next week Trump is going to attempt to ram through the even more conservative Amy Coney Barrett ahead of the mid-terms in November knowing the sexual assault angle isn't going to work with her.

User avatar
SR
Posts: 6614
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#20 Post by SR » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:15 am

Written statements are not under oath, which is exactly what Ford wants from the people she’s cited as being there.

And the hackery seems to be the kangaroo court Grassley is trying to preside over. But fuck it, confirm him. It’s a witch hunt. Eventually, the totality of collective reckoning should be a blast

Post Reply